Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2006 Apr;8(2):165-73.
doi: 10.1089/dia.2006.8.165.

Assessment of glycemic control after islet transplantation using the continuous glucose monitor in insulin-independent versus insulin-requiring type 1 diabetes subjects

Affiliations

Assessment of glycemic control after islet transplantation using the continuous glucose monitor in insulin-independent versus insulin-requiring type 1 diabetes subjects

Breay W Paty et al. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2006 Apr.

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to assess and compare glycemic control using the continuous glucose monitor (CGMS, Medtronic Minimed, Northridge, CA) in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) subjects who are insulin-independent versus those who require insulin after islet transplantation alone (ITA).

Methods: Glycemic control was assessed using 72-h CGMS in eight T1DM subjects who were insulin-independent after ITA (ITA-II), eight T1DM subjects who were C-peptide-positive but insulin-requiring after ITA (ITA-IR), and eight non-transplanted (NT) T1DM subjects.

Results: Standard deviation of glucose values was not significantly different between ITA-II and ITA-IR subjects (ITA-II, 1.2 +/- 0.1 mM; ITA-IR, 2.0 +/- 0.3 mM; P = 0.072). Both ITA groups were more stable than NT subjects (NT, 3.3 +/- 0.3 mM; P = 0.001 vs. ITA). Mean high glucose values were significantly lower in ITA subjects compared with NT subjects (ITA-II, 10.5 +/- 0.6 mM; ITA-IR, 13.0 +/- 1.0 mM; NT, 16.1 +/- 1.1 mM; P = 0.002). Mean average glucose values were not significantly different among all groups (ITA-I, 6.7 +/- 0.2 mM; ITA-IR, 7.8 +/- 0.3 mM; NT, 7.7 +/- 0.6 mM; P = 0.198). Mean low glucose values were significantly higher in both ITA groups compared with NT subjects (ITA-II, 4.5 +/- 0.2 mM; ITA-IR, 4.3 +/- 0.3 mM; NT, 3.0 +/- 0.2 mM; P = 0.003). Duration of hypoglycemic excursions (<3.0 mM) was markedly reduced in both ITA groups (ITA-II, 0%; ITA-IR, 2.4 +/- 0.2%; NT, 11.8 +/- 4.2%). Glycated hemoglobin was not significantly different between ITA groups (ITA-II, 6.4 +/- 0.2%; ITA-IR, 6.5 +/- 0.3%) and was significantly higher in NT subjects (8.3 +/- 0.2%; P < 0.001 vs. ITA).

Conclusions: CGMS monitoring demonstrates that glycemic lability and hypoglycemia are significantly reduced in C-peptide-positive islet transplant recipients, whether or not supplementary, exogenous insulin is used, compared with non-transplanted T1DM subjects.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources